Provenance: see Remarks on O. BMFA 72.666. Ryholt assumes the ostracon to derive from "another Theban source" than Deir el-Medina, since the name he read is unknown from that community.
Dates attributed: in spite of what Ryholt thinks, the palaeography points to dyn. 19.
Contents: according to Ryholt this type of text was used for oracle petitions, but administrative purposes are equally possible.
Names, Titles: Ryholt incorrectly reads the name as 9Hwty-Hr-maw. For a similar defective writing of the name see O. IFAO 1060.